Kernel page, once again
jeroen at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue Jun 15 15:05:15 PDT 2004
Summary of your long post (please correct me if I misrepresent you):
1. we should include configuration and documentation for all possible
combinations of packages which a user can optionally install. This is
because the current docs about hotplug/udev are insufficient, and there
are too many problems a user can run into.
2. if a package is optional and has alternatives, we should include at
least one alternative.
This goes IMHO exactly against the currently default principle that we
should provide instructions and support for one default choice, but
point out alternatives. Arguments:
* including more then one alternative means you have to include all
* there is no educational benefit for providing more then one package
which serves the same function
* we try to keep the number of packages in the book down because LFS
does not try to be everything to all people
* we have to assume the reader follows the book, because it would
require not only a lot more support issues, but also testing and QA
issues if we account for every deviation.
Furthermore, in my POV, optional only means that the package is not
required for a fully functional LFS system, not that the book provides
instructions in case you leave it out. Perhaps we should declare all
Lastly, your points that udev's documentation is incomplete and it has a
lot of possible traps are only arguments to reconsider the decision to
include it in the book, not a reason to expand the book just because the
package is not ready yet! I have repeatedly stated that I didn't
consider udev ready for prime time (bleeding edge); seems that you just
confirmed my opinion.
More information about the lfs-dev